The books of photographer Jock Sturges have ignited several censorship cases in America's southern states. Why? Because
his pictures include shots of naked children. That's kiddie porn, bubba. Both Barnes & Noble and Border's
book chain, which carry Sturges' works, have been challenging
the statutes that make this illegal. The ensuing battle has been quite revealing (no pun intended).

Beneath all the dry legalese and partisan warfare lay some
intriguing questions: What makes something obscene? Specifically,
when does an image of a nude child become sick and pedophilic,
rather than beautiful and natural? And how do issues of consent
and intention play into the controversy?

In Europe, of course, the sexual qualities of the young are revered instead of
considered taboo. Past cultures celebrated youthful
sexuality. What is Donatello's "David" if not an eroticization
of young manhood? So why are we so uptight?

These are among the questions Sturges addresses, and addresses well, in
this interview. The artist gives compelling reasons why his work,
if not all potentially erotic photographs of children and other
people, should be considered art rather than pornography.

What do you think? As usual, I'm interested in hearing your views.
Email me at this address, or contribute your opinions to our Talk
Back forum. Don't be shy!

Want to know what all these checkboxes are for?
Click here to find out, or just ignore them.

Unsentimental Seascapes
In the late 20th century, serious artists have turned their attention once again to the sea. [12]Margaret Regan

Want to know what all these checkboxes are for?
Click here to find out, or just ignore them.

An Interview With Jock Sturges
Once again, the morality cops are going after art photographer Jock Sturges. In this candid interview, Sturges explains that a nude is a nude, but booty is in the eye of the beholder. [2]David Steinberg